This weekend our traffic enforcement

[Soup DeVille]

This argument is fruitless. Neither side can go back, relive their chidhood, and then decide, so it's frikkin' meaningles.

They're poor people who don't appreciate anything. They're rich people who can appreciate anything.

Anybody remember the name of the guy who was the heir to the White trucks fortune and has amassed a huge collection of unrestored, near junk autos and assembled them into a giant history display? Here's a rich man who has found a sort of appreciation for things that most people consdier garbage. Tom something or other...

I used to drive limos in college. Occasionally, the job included picking up some of the players for the Detroit Lions. Most of these guys were born poor and have earned their money in a very real sense, and some of them seemed to not give a shit about anything they owned.

[Raza]

Glad I'm not any of your kids.  I thought parents are supposed to want to give their children better lives, but you apparently get off on being withholding. 

"No, I'm withholding it.  Look at me, getting off."

[Soup DeVille]

Glad I'm not any of your kids.  I thought parents are supposed to want to give their children better lives, but you apparently get off on being withholding. 

It can also mean giving your kids the tools to lead a better life, and making your kids earn what they get can help equip them for what they'll have to do later.

[TBR]

Why is that?  Because your parents make you pay for everything on your own?  Or because your Christian sensibilities allow you to judge?

I think you're wrong. 

Because it is easier to imagine having something that you have never had than to imagine not having it if you have always had it.

[TBR]

Glad I'm not any of your kids.  I thought parents are supposed to want to give their children better lives, but you apparently get off on being withholding. 

"No, I'm withholding it.  Look at me, getting off."

Money and things are not a better life.

[Soup DeVille]

Money and things are not a better life.

That's just something poor people say.

[Eye of the Tiger]

That's just something poor people say.

I'm poor, and I don't even say that.

[TBR]

That's just something poor people say.

I would hardly qualify myself as poor.

(though I am guessing you are being sarcastic here, but oh well)

[Soup DeVille]

I would hardly qualify myself as poor.

(though I am guessing you are being sarcastic here, but oh well)

Your poor, I'm poor, Raza's poor, and unless somebody here has their own private island staffed by playboy playmates, everybody here is poor.

(yes I was being sarcastic)

[omicron]

I like money and things!

[TBR]

So do I, but I am not so ignorant to think that they will really make my life better. They are a mere complement to many other things that really matter.

[Soup DeVille]

So do I, but I am not so ignorant to think that they will really make my life better. They are a mere complement to many other things that really matter.

Look at it this way.

Take one person and say they are a humorless, friendless slob with no taste, no appreciation of art or music, no real accomplishments in life and no meaningful relationship.

Then take another person that's exactly the same except he has a private jet.

Who's life is better?

[TBR]

Neither. What is the point in having a jet if not only there is no one to travel with you but you have no interest in traveling either?

[Eye of the Tiger]

Neither. What is the point in having a jet if not only there is no one to travel with you but you have no interest in traveling either?

Jets are fun.

[TBR]

Can't say that I particularly enjoy them, I'd rather drive.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Can't say that I particularly enjoy them, I'd rather drive.

Try sitting in the pilot's seat...

[omicron]

I'm entirely shallow. I don't need my life to be made 'better' as such, because I'm not in the market for wholesomeness or fulfilment at the moment; just materialistic thrills.

[JYODER240]

Whoever says money and things don't make life more enjoyable is a liar. They won't ever make you completly happy, but they can certianly make your life more enjoyable.

[JYODER240]

It creates spoiled, arrogant brats who would most often be happier and more successful without the money. People work harder and smarter when they have to build up their resources on their own.

I would rather give my children things to remember me by, then to give them a lot of money, which is, imho, actually a disadvantage.

Having money never has and never will create spoiled, arrogant brats. Poor parenting does.

[TheIntrepid]

Having money never has and never will create spoiled, arrogant brats. Poor parenting does.

Yeah that's true. Money doesn't mean happiness either. I mean, it may mean short-term happiness. I'm sure I'd be psyched if I won the lottery, but I'm sure I'd eventually lose my values if I didn't control my spending.

[Champ]

Any thread with an Arrested Development referrence is solid in my book.

[Northlands]

Having money never has and never will create spoiled, arrogant brats. Poor parenting does.

I couldn't agree more. I grew up middle class. I've had some very well off friends. I've seen with my own eyes the differences between rich parents with no parenting skills to those with great parenting skills. It's a no brainer to figure out which friends turned out to be decent people. 

Just to add to the income based fines. I don't agree. Being punished for earning more money ( which can also mean for working more/harder ) is wrong. These are both American and Canadian values that people have been taught.

What should be done, and is done in some jurisdictions, is that it works against your insurance, AND.. having a license points system. Tickets will cause you to lose points. Lose enough of them, and you will not have a license. Then you cannot legally drive.

This way, whether you are rich,poor, middle of the road... the points always catch up to you.

[Raza]

Any thread with an Arrested Development referrence is solid in my book.

[TBR]

Having money never has and never will create spoiled, arrogant brats. Poor parenting does.

Certainly, but giving your kids everything they want is poor parenting as far as I am concerned. That is generational wealth, plain regular wealth (as in actually earned by the individual in question, not by his parents or other family members) is certainly fine by me, and is something I want to achieve.

[JYODER240]

Certainly, but giving your kids everything they want is poor parenting as far as I am concerned. That is generational wealth, plain regular wealth (as in actually earned by the individual in question, not by his parents or other family members) is certainly fine by me, and is something I want to achieve.

Generational wealth does not mean that kids will be given everything they want.

[hounddog]

To start with, "Generational Wealth" is wealth that is passed from one deceased family member to an offspring.  It has nothing to do with giving your children anything while still alive. 

Secondly, if a person wishes to give his or her wealth away upon their death, why should the government get ANY part of that which they have already collect an income tax.

Lastly, while we are on this topic, it is my considered opinion that persons above the age of 65, those receiving pensions, those receiving social security benefits including disability benefits, veterans of our armed forces (or more pointedly veterans of wars), and retired public employees such as police firefighters and teachers should not be required to pay any taxes at all upon retirement.  These people have all done their bit for 'king and country.' 

Of course, that comes from someone fairly biased. 

[hounddog]

When traffic safety ?experts? start quoting the laws of physics, you can bet they?re getting their ass kicked in the argument. 

This is an unbelievably sophmoric statement, and doubled by the fact of your insufferable reliance on statistics, which as we all know, are easily manipulated.

edit- spelling error

In fact, they have fallen dramatically.  You?re just using the wrong measures.  The population of drivers, vehicles and miles of roadway have increased dramatically, yet, even in absolute numbers, the number of fatalities decreased from 43,510 in 2005 to 42,462 in 2006 (latest data available).  That?s a decline of 1,028 for passenger vehicle motorists/passengers but an increase of 234 for motorcyclists.  That is a fatality rate 1.46 in 2005 and 1.42 in 2006, a decline of 2.7%....[etc]

These numbers are deceiving, and couterproductive to your arguement that safer cars and crash barriers has resulted in fewer deaths and injuries at high speed.

These fatalities and injury reports are to include, but not limited to; car vs. pedestrian, car vs. bicycle, off-road vehicle while on road crashes (snowmobile or atv), car vs. animal, all motorcycle crashes, all fatalities from every speed zone, train vs. car, train vs. pedestrian when roadway is involved, etc. 

Because of this, you assertion that since fatalities and injuries have fallen there is a correlation between those raw numbers and highway/auto safety are self-evident and self-prooving.  That could not be further from the truth, and is highly inaccurate.

The rest of what you wrote is just you opining in your normal long- winded manner, not provable on your end, and is simply not worth my time and effort to respond.

[Rupert]

Are you saying that because it's possible to manipulate statistical data, all statistical data has been manipulated?

[hounddog]

Are you saying that because it's possible to manipulate statistical data, all statistical data has been manipulated?

Nothing of the kind, in fact, I am not even certain how you came to that.

I am saying that he wants more scientific methods used to determine "proper" speed limits, yet mocks the very science and mathmatics that would be required to make it happen; while seemingly wishing only to use raw traffic crash data collected by, as he would say, 'uneducated half-wits' or whatever insult he chooses to thinly and half-heartedly veil.

[Rupert]

You keep saying how all the data presented to you is bad because they're stats.